Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
spitfire
Walty McWaltface
One Tower Hamlets has been causing our local councillors all sorts of grief and is a deranged stalking obsessed cunt. He's horrible.
The lawyers use of “human rights” here is interesting - particularly “Lambeth have already admitted that they are breaching human rights” - this isn’t even a fair quote of the telegraph article which says “may interfering with the human rights of residents”.
this feels so naive it’s disingenuous and exploitative.
human rights are not absolute - my right to be a dick does not overrule your right not to suffer my dickery.
the lawyers must know this.
this feels so naive it’s disingenuous and exploitative.
human rights are not absolute - my right to be a dick does not overrule your right not to suffer my dickery.
the lawyers must know this.
Last edited:
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I think you've got me mixed up with someone else.
I hardly use Twitter.
I don't think Twitter or FB brings out best in people. So tend to avoid them as far as messaging goes. I also look at it sparingly.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I think its disappointing. Was hoping that some negative criticism from Judge would push Lambeth to give Blue Badge holders exemption.
JR don't stop executive from enacting decisions in the end. Cressingham "regeneration" is still on despite Lambeth losing one JR. Cressingham are fundraising for a new one.
Last edited:
a_chap
When the world came apart, where were you?
I think you've got me mixed up with someone else.
I clearly have.
Please accept my apologies.
cuppa tee
Well-Known Member
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
Puzzled by a couple of the Onesies claims I've had a look at the judgement:
- Oval LTN is "illegal". "
the judge's decision here was that -
1. [THE ETOs for Oval] are valid and must be respected. The absence of authority when they were made is regrettable but even during the six week period before they became impregnable against challenge, the want of authority objection was technical: Lambeth clearly intended them to be made and intended the director concerned to have authority to make them.
- "the council have stated implementation of LTNs was more important that peoples human rights"
(below is from a comment on the BB story. not sure what link they're talking about? The Telegraph story?)
The actual report itself – see link – says that the LTN may interfere with the rights to enjoyment of property (e.g., using a car),or respect for home – by restricting the driving routes to it. Any traffic measure might. But the report goes on to justify those interferences. In other words, Lambeth’s view is that the LTN measures do not breach human rights.
The statement they've put out also just repeats all the claims the judge dismissed as being false or irrelevant ...
Finally, just on the point that the Onesies have always been clear when fundraising that this was about the rights of disabled drivers, I noticed the poster they were using at their protest in that tweet upthread....
- Oval LTN is "illegal". "
the judge's decision here was that -
1. [THE ETOs for Oval] are valid and must be respected. The absence of authority when they were made is regrettable but even during the six week period before they became impregnable against challenge, the want of authority objection was technical: Lambeth clearly intended them to be made and intended the director concerned to have authority to make them.
- "the council have stated implementation of LTNs was more important that peoples human rights"
(below is from a comment on the BB story. not sure what link they're talking about? The Telegraph story?)
The actual report itself – see link – says that the LTN may interfere with the rights to enjoyment of property (e.g., using a car),or respect for home – by restricting the driving routes to it. Any traffic measure might. But the report goes on to justify those interferences. In other words, Lambeth’s view is that the LTN measures do not breach human rights.
The statement they've put out also just repeats all the claims the judge dismissed as being false or irrelevant ...
Finally, just on the point that the Onesies have always been clear when fundraising that this was about the rights of disabled drivers, I noticed the poster they were using at their protest in that tweet upthread....
Last edited:
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Still they push the lie that roads have been “shut”.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I've just had a read through of the judgement. This is just my lay interpretation of what it all means. Some of it is quite technical, but it seems to me that those technical bits aren't really the important bits. By that I mean that I don't think Lambeth have got away on technicalities.
He doesn't really criticise Lambeth - essentially he says that the way they have implemented the schemes is lawful, and that includes the questions of whether they carried out their equalities assessments adequately and whether they consulted adequately. In both cases he seems to have decided that yes they did, in the context of these particular schemes and the times in which they were implemented. He says that the decision might have been different in a different context - but he's looked at in the context that actually existed. That includes of course the Covid crisis and the direction from central government to implement changes very rapidly. So he is examining a process that starts with Lambeth considering various schemes to be brought in over a 3 year period, that is suddenly accelerated and results in various things being brought in very quickly using a different method than originally envisaged.
As part of this he talks quite a bit of things being assessed and adjusted on a rolling basis. This includes the equality considerations. He seems to think that Lambeth are genuinely considering issues on this "rolling" basis. That means that he does not necessarily criticise them for not having made mitigations so far - but this certainly doesn't mean that he considers this process complete. In other words there seems to be an expectation that various mitigations will be adopted in due course, and based on the outcome of ongoing monitoring and consultation. He talks about the decision having been made to exempt SEND vehicles - even though this has not yet actually been done. It seems to be OK that it has not yet been done but it would not be OK if they fail to do it in a reasonable time. So - I don't see anything in the judgement that tells Lambeth they shouldn't or don't need to consider a blue badge exemption.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
The other thing that runs throughout the judgement is the notion that this kind of decision making has to weigh benefits for one group against disbenefits for another. It seems to acknowledge that you can't implement changes that are in the wider interest without making things worse for some people. There is a lot of talk about balancing exercises. Of course, while you might have to accept that you will cause some inconvenience for some people, you also have to try and make sure it's not disproportionate or unacceptably severe.
I'd slightly misunderstood how this case would be assessed - I'd thought it would take the claimant's case as a kind of "example" case and look at her particular situation, and look at the effects on her, and decide whether or not they were unacceptably severe and then somehow extrapolate that to a wider judgement. But that's not really what it is at all - the particulars of her case seem not to be significant (is the involvement of a 'claimant' merely a technical requirement?) and it's all about whether or not Lambeth have demonstrated that they have given sufficient thought to weighing up benefits and disbenefits in a more general sense.
As far as the claimant is concerned, I simply can't say whether or not I think she's been unreasonably affected, because I don't know the full details of her situation, which are none of my business unless she chooses to share and discuss them, and there's no reason she should be expected to do that. No-one, of course, wants to say that someone who's already been disadvantaged by severe health problems should just have to put up with some further disadvantage. However, the response to this is that there are lots of people with severe health problems who are disadvantaged by the status quo - and this has to be balanced against those who will be disadvantaged by the changes.
I'd slightly misunderstood how this case would be assessed - I'd thought it would take the claimant's case as a kind of "example" case and look at her particular situation, and look at the effects on her, and decide whether or not they were unacceptably severe and then somehow extrapolate that to a wider judgement. But that's not really what it is at all - the particulars of her case seem not to be significant (is the involvement of a 'claimant' merely a technical requirement?) and it's all about whether or not Lambeth have demonstrated that they have given sufficient thought to weighing up benefits and disbenefits in a more general sense.
As far as the claimant is concerned, I simply can't say whether or not I think she's been unreasonably affected, because I don't know the full details of her situation, which are none of my business unless she chooses to share and discuss them, and there's no reason she should be expected to do that. No-one, of course, wants to say that someone who's already been disadvantaged by severe health problems should just have to put up with some further disadvantage. However, the response to this is that there are lots of people with severe health problems who are disadvantaged by the status quo - and this has to be balanced against those who will be disadvantaged by the changes.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Which is why pretty much everyone posting on this thread seems to think that such an exemption would be a good idea.
I wasn't saying they were but it's not the people on here who have to give it, it's Lambeth. Why haven't they done this already? Maybe plans are afoot, happy to be updated.
Jeanette Moo
Active Member
You kind of have to wonder if Lambeth are holding onto this for a last minute concession, rather than giving in too soon.
if so this would be quite a hostile strategy
liquidindian
Hello
I believe that the judge has not refused appeal which I believe (caveats galore here) is not that common. You'd need a legal expert to say what that really means, though.
Exactly - if they’re saying this on Twitter I wonder what they’re saying in the Facebook group and whether they’re looking to raise more money for an appeal.
I’m guessing chowce5382 isn’t coming back but maybe he can shed some light on what grounds they might appeal on.
Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
This is correct I think.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
It'd be really strange if they were refused appeal, but it's difficult to see what they could actually appeal from that case.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
If you look back through the thread, I'm sure someone posted a link to the full judgement.
Jeanette Moo
Active Member
The judgement and the transcript are two different things. It would be nice to see what each side said
Jeanette Moo
Active Member
From what I understand it is strange to refuse appeal. The judge did it with the taxi case they were so sure of their judgement. They went from four out of five points uphled to case lost.
IN this case news articles seem to indicate the judge invited appeal....which is strange and why the transcripts would be interesting.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
News articles might just have been written from the onelambeth press release that claimed that. No reason to assume they had a reporter in court or have looked at the transcript themselves
Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
Transcripts aren’t always produced. Only if the parties pay for them.
Based solely on the judgement, appeal was neither refused nor encouraged. There may have been comments at the time from the judge that weren’t in the judgement. I guess we’ll find out in due course.
Based solely on the judgement, appeal was neither refused nor encouraged. There may have been comments at the time from the judge that weren’t in the judgement. I guess we’ll find out in due course.
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
Onesies making much of the judge saying their appeal had a "real prospect of success". I googled to see what that phrase actually means in legal terms and it seems its just the minimum threshold to ensure it's not a complete waste of everyones time.
Registration
BC Legal Ltd is a new boutique law firm specialising exclusively in defendant occupational disease litigation.
www.bc-legal.co.uk
Similar threads
